Functions of Language
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals
Devices for Propaganda
This is a website update which was added on March 9, 2003. It is a condensed version of a very small portion of the information found in An Introduction to Critical Thinking - A Beginners Text in Logic by W. H. Werkmeister, copyright 1948 by Johnsen Publishing Company in Lincoln, Nebraska, Fifth Edition, 1950.
This was my first text in a course in critical thinking and logic which has proven to be a key to one of the most useful tools available during the course of my life. After studying this text, the lessons learned became part of my usual mode of thinking and, thereafter, I was not so easily misled by those who may have wished to do so.
THE FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals
Devices for Propaganda
Chapter One of the text is on the functions of language. Language is a primary tool of reason, enabling us to fixate, describe, and organize our experiences, and to profit from the experiences of others. Language helps to provide intelligent cooperation among us. Many positive consequences derive from the foregoing. However, language can also become a barrier between us as a source of confusion and misunderstanding. Used in the "wrong" manner, it becomes a tool for the unscrupulous. Therefore, the first step in critical thinking must be an attempt to understand the ends and purposes for which language may be employed.
At least five distinct functions of language are readily discernible. They are (1) logical, (2) expressive, (3) evocative, (4) poetical, and (5) ceremonial.
The first, logical, is the function of conveying information. This information can be in the form of "reports" and/or "arguments". Examples of reports are: Lee surrendered at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, and The United States bought the Louisiana Territory from France for $15,000,000. An example found in a science text expresses the laws of gravity: All material bodies attract one another in direct proportion to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of their distances. An example argument is: All of his horses were palaminos and palaminos have very light manes. Therefore, all of his horse have light manes. Note that arguments are based upon reports. If the reports are incorrect, any arguments derived from them are invalid.
Bear in mind that this function can convey information that is either true or false. Neither information nor logic is defined as truth. A report may be true or false and any arguments derived from reports are no more valid than are their foundation reports. The quality of information, as regards truthfulness, is fully dependent upon whether or not a report (or reports) can be verified. Therefore, information must be examined and verified when possible. If it is verified, it can be accepted as truth. If it is shown to be untrue, it can be discarded as such. If it can be neither verified nor found to be untrue, it should be held as something that could be either truth or falsehood. In the latter case, subsequent events will usually disclose the degree of truth or falsehood in the information.
This function is extremely important and information must be verified as early as possible to avoid the building of a whole heirarchy of false arguments as is the case with many of our branches of science today. This early verification would not be so important if scientists were both honest and skilled enough to hold information as only speculation until proven otherwise.
The second, expressive, is the function of expressing emotion or relieving oneself of motion. It may take the form of short phrases or whole paragraphs of emotionally-charged words. Often, little information is conveyed within the emotions. Examples of short phrases are: The dirty rat!, What a magnificent view!, or Ouch! An example of a paragraph is: Let Americans see to it that this polity of ours remain the unconquerable outpost of freedom and so of the creative imagination. It may be its fate and function to save the eternal humanities abandoned by all others and to be mankind's single bridge across an immeasurable abyss of darkness to some far shore of light.
The third, evocative, is the function of evoking responses in or from others. Like the expressive function, it may take the form of short phrases or whole paragraphs of emotionally-charged words. Examples of short phrases are: Man the guns!, Joe Blank for Congress!, or Help! An example of a paragraph is: Whoever the Republican candidate may be, it would be naive to suppose that if he is elected his policies and decisions will not be influenced, and in many instances determined, by those whose votes elected him. If he is another Harding or Hoover, or a fence-sitter, or an Old Guard protege', then we're in for it and where's the nearest foxhole? But even if he is a man of wisdom and good will, informed, enlightened, and able, he will be powerless to direct our share in the organization of a decent and workable world. A large portion of those who will have voted for him, certainly enough to have tipped the scales in his favor, will be, as they always have been, violently opposed to our taking part in any such organization on any feasible or cooperative basis. No matter what his position during the campaign, he will know those voters elected him, and it will be impossible for him to reject their council or deny them representation in the high positions of government. This passage from Rex Stout's "Message", written in 1944, is meant to cause people to vote against a Republican presidential candidate.
The fourth function, poetical, is that of using words in a poetical form such as:
I wandered lonely as a cloud
that floats on high o'er vales and hills.
I heard the trailing garments of the Night
Sweep through her marble halls!
There is sweet music here that softer falls
than petals from blown roses on the grass.
Poetry is meant to transfuse emotions rather than to transmit thought or impart information. Its power does not come from content, but rather from the manner in which content is expressed. Poetry appeals to the emotions rather than to the intellect. Poetry has many uses and often includes many or all of the other functions. It uses rythm to work upon a part of the human brain which affects emotion and is more likely to hold a memory for a longer time. Furthermore, poetry often expresses something in a way that is more condensed than is the case with prose.
The fifth function, ceremonial, is one used for perfunctory "good" manners or "correct" responses to situations. Examples are: Call again when you are in town, How is everything with you?, or Well, better luck next time! It is also used in the rituals of churches and fraternal orders, state ceremonies, and the like. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example of ceremonial use of language.
The foregoing functions are usually mixed so that two or more are present in one sentence. They can be discovered by asking oneself what the sentence is meant to do.
FALLACIES OR ERRORS IN REASONING
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Functions of Language
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals
Devices for Propaganda
Chapter two of the text is devoted to fallacies and errors in reasoning. If language is to be used beneficially, it is necessary to understand the causes and ways of avoiding detrimental use of it. There are fundamentally two types of difficulties involved in language usage. The first is statements purported to be factual or true and yet are neither factual nor true. The second is arguments which presumably establish specific conclusions and yet do not do so.
1. Amphiboly is a fallacy caused by faulty grammatical construction of a sentence. It occurs when words are placed loosely without proper grouping so that the statement becomes ambiguous. This example is a headline from a newspaper: Homemakers: Save Soap and Waste Paper. Did the headline mean that paper was to be wasted or saved?
2. Accent arises from an ambiguity, but the ambiguity involved is the result of misplaced emphasis. A change in emphasis can change the meaning of a sentence. Example: Nothing is too good for her. This can be taken in two ways. Is it supposed to mean Nothing is is to good for her or Nothing is too good for her? In the first instance, the emphasis implies that she is very worthy. In the second instance, the emphasis implies that she is worthless.
3. Figure of Speech comes in two related forms: (1) one can argue that the moon is feminine because the Latin word "Luna" is of feminine gender, and (2) one can argue that America has a head from such a poetic phrase as I saw America hang her head in shame. If such figures of speech are taken literally, they are foundations for this fallacy.
4. Hypostatization is a special form of Figure of Speech. It is created when abstract concepts such as "truth", "beauty", "humanity", "justice", "progress", etc. are treated as if they were specific and concrete entities capable of independent existence and of producing empirical effects. Examples are: the State can do no wrong and Science demonstrates the truth of certain laws.
5. Amphiboly, figure of speech, and hypostatization are fallacies of interpretation arising from inattention to language. All other fallacies arising from inattention to language are errors in reasoning. The first of these is equivocation. It derives from an equivocal or ambiguous use of a word or phrase in the course of an argument. An example follows.
What is right should be enforced by law.
Voting in a Presidential election is a right..
Voting in a Presidential election should, therefore, be enforced by law
The word "right" in the above has two meanings. The argument began with one meaning and then shifted to the second meaning for this word.
There are other times when the meaning of word has not been shifted, but in which the word is so ambiguous that it has two or more meanings. For example: Is there a sound in a room in which an alarm clock "rings", when there is no ear present to hear it? If sound means something that is audible, then there is no sound in the room. If sound means a specific type of vibration within the air, then sound is present in the room. The word "time" can mean many things in our language and is often a problem in discussions because it has not been defined. One person may believe that one type of time is being discussed and another may believe that a different type of time is the topic of conversation.
6. Composition occurs when one reasons from the properties of constituent parts of a whole to the properties of the whole itself, or from individual members of a collection taken severally to the collection as such. To argue, for example, that since every part of a machine is light, the machine as a whole weighs little, is to commit the fallacy of composition.
There are many examples of composition which are not so obvious. The following argument advanced by certain politicians is fallacious. High prices of farm products are beneficial to the farmers; high prices of shoes and clothes help the department stores; high prices of automobiles, radios, and refrigerators are of benefit to the manufacturers of these products. Similarly, high prices of other goods are beneficial to all who deal in them. Hence, if we raise the price of all goods, the nation will be well off economically. If everyone raises the cost of his products, then buying power decreases. Since sales tax is added, the higher prices make for higher sales taxes. Income tax for each person moves to a higher bracket and more income tax percentage-wise is collected. Overall, the people lose a larger percentage of their income and are worse off than they were before. The government gains a greater percent through income tax and does very well. But when other factors are considered such as the effects of inflation on bank loans, the banks who loan money to the government are injured. And, therefore, the government loses as well.
7. Division is the opposite of composition. It arises when one argues from the properties of the whole to the properties of the constituent parts. For instance, "John belongs to the most disreputable fraternity on the campus, and therefore you cannot trust him", is such a fallacy.
8. Bifurcation rises from the fact that a number of words in the English language go in pairs, designating contrasting groups, opposites, or extremes of scale. Examples are black/white, rich/poor, good/bad, moral/immoral, rational/irrational, normal/abnormal, tolerant/intolerant, etc. In truth, these opposites are the extremes and many shades of gray lie between them. But if an argument proceeds as if there were no shades of gray, the fallacy of bifurcation has been committed. Example: Only the rich and the poor need be of any concern to our government; the rich, because they will try to influence our legislatures through the power of their wealth; the poor, because they must be cared for by the state. But what of the varying degrees found in the middle classes?
9. Accident arises when one accepts a generalization as of it were universally true and without exception. Example: It is impossible that Mr. Jones should have to pay $10,000 in taxes annually, for he lives in the poorest county in our state. Mr. Jones may live in a poor county but he may own most of the real estate in that county.
10. Converse Accident is committed whenever some exceptional occurrence is taken as the basis for a universal conclusion; when what is true under particular circumstances is taken to be true in general. Example: Earl Browder supported Roosevelt for a fourth term, and he is communist; Joe Manaher supported Roosevelt for a fourth term, and he too is communist. So all supporters of Roosevelt were communists. But some, many, or most supporters of Roosevelt may have been from other political parties.
11. Begging the Question is a fallacy that occurs in several forms, but every form of it is committed by assuming at the outset of the argument the very point which is to be established as the conclusion.
11a. Petitio Principii is a form, the first type of which infers the proposition to be proved, is proved from itself or from an equivalent proposition. Examples follow.
The belief in God is universal, for everybody believes in God.
Honesty is praiseworthy because it deserves the approval of all.
This measure is designed to reduce the staggering debt of the nation, for it proposes to pay off some of that debt.
A second type of this form is committed when something which is true under particular circumstances, is inferred from a universal premise which is itself established through the particular case to be inferred from it. An example follows. The deterioration of governmental efficiency and honesty which we observe at present is the direct result of a widespread indifference of the people with respect to governmental affairs. Such indifference always results in governmental inefficiency and dishonesty, as is clearly shown by the present deplorable conditions in our government.
A third type of this form is committed when a universal proposition is inferred from something which is true in particular cases only because the proposition to be inferred is presupposed as true. An example follows.
If line A is parallel to line B, and line B is parallel to line C, then line A is parallel to line C. Note that the conclusion is true. However, it is is true only because of an established and proven law in plane geometry which has not been stated. Had the law been stated as a proven fact, before the above argument was made, no fallacy would have been committed.
A fourth type of this form is committed when the conclusion is assumed piecemeal in the premises. An example follows. Man is a featherless biped; he is also a rational being. Therefore, man is a featherless biped and a rational being.
11b. Arguing in a Circle is a second form of Begging the Question. This occurs when several steps are necessary to complete an argument which begs the question. An example follows. Beethoven's "Fifth" is greater music than Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue". How do I know this? The experts tell me so. And how do I know who is an expert? Well, he is a person who prefers Beethoven's "Fifth" to Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue".
11c. Question-Begging Epithets is a third form of Begging the Question. It is found in the use of names and adjectives which assume that which required proof. When John L. Lewis referred to former Vice-President Garner as a "whiskey-drinking, poker-playing, evil old man", he resorted to question-begging epithets.
12. Complex Question is a fallacy that arises when a question is asked in such a manner that it implicitly assumes an answer to some other question. Examples are: How long are we going to tolerate foreign interference with our national interests?, or Have you stopped beating your wife? In the first case, it must be assumed that there is foreign interference. In the second case, it must be assumed that you have been beating your wife.
13. Imperfect Analogy is a fallacy that arises when reasoning from an analogy that is not completely appropriate. Bohr's conception of an atom with its central nucleus and whirling electrons was patterned after our solar system. The analogy was far from perfect. Such analogies are guides for thought but never actual evidence.
MORE FALLACIES AND ERRORS IN REASONING
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Functions of Language
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals
Devices for Propaganda
14. False Cause is a fallacy which occurs in several forms involving a different aspect of the cause-effect relationship.
14a. Non Causa Pro Causa means that which is not the cause of a phenomenon is taken for the cause. In modern meteorology (weather forecasting), the jet stream over the northern part of our west coast seems to be what creates our weather. In the summer, this stream is far to the north and no rain falls in California. In the winter, the jet stream moves south and rain falls in California. Often the forecasters use sentences that infer that the jet stream is the cause of the dry-wet cycle. However, the jet stream is another consequence of the pattern of highs and lows which are created by other factors. These other factors through the medium of the high-low pattern create the summer and winter weather conditions as well as the movements north and south of the jet stream. So the jet stream is simply another effect that occurs at the same time as the dry-wet cycle. The jet stream is not what brings the rain - it only appears to bring rain. When the forecasters say that the jet stream is moving south and therefore we will have rain in California, they are implying Non Causa Pro Causa.
14b. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is what occurs when a preceding event is taken as the cause of a succeeding event. There were thirteen at dinner. One of the guests became sick and died shortly after the meal. Therefore, he died because he was thirteenth at the table.
14c. Confusion of Condition and Cause is another type of false cause. Conditions provide the environment for a cause and effect situation of a particular type. Poverty may be a condition which allows the crime rate to rise. However, it is not the cause of crime, and eliminating poverty will probably not eliminate crime. If poverty is stated as the cause of crime, this type of false cause is being committed.
14d. Confusion of Cause and Reciprocal Relation is the last type of false cause. Things which mutually influence each other are called "reciprocals". The individual and his environment are reciprocals because the environment affects the individual and the individual affects the environment. A confusion occurs when whenever one of the reciprocals is abstracted from the other and is treated as if it alone were the cause. The environmental theory of human personality completely disregards the factors of heredity. This creates confusion. The theories of reformers and revolutionists frequently stem from similar errors in abstraction.
15. Special Pleading is a fallacy which springs from the omission of evidence relevant to the point at issue but at variance with the conclusion set forth. It is one-side reasoning. Partisans in field of discussion often resort to this by omitting facts and reasons which are at variance with their contentions.
16. Poisoning the Well is a fallacy committed whenever the only source of evidence that can be derived is discredited in advance so that the evidence provided becomes unacceptable. Men rationalize all their desires. They find plausible reasons against any theory which they dislike. No better argument for this psychoanalytical fact can be found than the opposition it meets in wide circles; for all the arguments advanced against it are themselves merely rationalizations of a fundamental dislike. In this case, the arguments of the opposition are are disqualified in advance by being considered instances of the point being established.
17. Genetic Fallacy occurs when the truth or falsity of an idea is made dependent upon its own source. Generally, it involves the contention that an idea is true if it originates in the mind of "good" man, and false if it originates in the mind of a "bad" man. Examples follow.
The proposed state-wide prohibition must be a good thing because the ministerial association has inaugurated the drive.
The Anti-Poll-Tax Bill is a vicious and un-American attack upon our democracy, for it is sponsored by the Communist party.
18. Irrelevant Evidence is the use of unrelated or extraneous material as if it were relevant to the point. This fallacy occurs in different forms as follows.
18a. Argumentum ad Hominem is essentially an appeal involving the personal circumstances of the opponent in an abusive way. Instead of attacking the the proposition, theory, or bill submitted for consideration, this argument attacks the person who submits it. Example: In reply to the gentleman's claim that his program is designed to help the poor, I need only point out that he himself counts the most influential men of Wall Street among his friends; that he has never been hungry in his life; that only recently he has inherited another six million dollars; and that his children attend school in England.
18b. Argumentum ad Populum is actually an emotional appeal addressed to the "gallery". Instead of arguing to the point at issue, one appeals to the passions and prejudices of the populace. An example follows.
We who yet love and respect the democracy of Jefferson realize that the cards are stacked against us and that nothing said or done can stop this damnable piece of legislation in the House. Therefore, I shall consume but little time as no argument, regardless of its logic, will be of any avail. I do know that there are but few Members who at heart want to support the legislation, but are forced by political expediency to do so. I see so plainly the filthy hand of communism at work bringing this nation step by step into despotism until I must go emphatically on record on the question. When I look into the shadows and see the skeletons of Earl Browder and John L. Lewis and others of their creed standing guard over the sponsors of this measure, pushing day to day for the destruction of liberty and freedom, I shudder at the thought of the state your children and mine will live in if the spirit of Jefferson and other founders of this great Republic does not rise from the grave and run from the face of the globe every every trace of communism, and cause to burn again in the breast of our people a love for democracy. Yes, old time simple democracy, the only kind that will let you be your brother's keeper.
18c. Argumentum ad Misericordiam is an appeal to pity. It is an attempt to sway the masses, to sway an audience, a jury, or the like, by an appeal to the emotions of pity and sympathy. It is the defense attorney's device for "softening the jury", but may be employed by the prosecution as well. Often the appeal goes far beyond sympathy for the accused as was the case with Thomas I. Kidd, general secretary of the Amalgamated Workers' International Union, when he was indicted for criminal conspiracy. The words that follow are Clarence Darrow's.
I appeal to you not for Thomas Kidd, but I appeal to you for the long line - the long, long line reaching back through the ages and forward to the years to come - the long line of despoiled and downtrodden people of the earth. I appeal to you for those men who rise in the morning before daylight comes and who go home at night when the light has faded from the sky and give their life, their strength, their toil to make others rich and great. I appeal to you in the name of those women who are offering up their lives to this modern god of gold, and I appeal to you in the name of those little children, the living and the unborn.
Note that in the above quote nothing was said that was actually relevant to Thomas Kidd - or to his guilt or innocence.
18d. Argumentum as Verecundiam arises from an attempt to justify or validate an idea by quoting some "authority" - some person or group of persons, some party, institution, or book - in its support; or to refute an idea by quoting "authorities" to the contrary. Example: The doctrine of biological evolution cannot be true, for it contradicts the Biblical account of creation, the Church Fathers never accepted it, and the fundamentalists explicitly condemn it.
18e. Argumentum as Ignorantiam is an argument based upon ignorance. This is an attempt to shift the burden of the proof. Example: Belief in immortality is unwarranted, for no one can absolutely prove that the soul is immortal.
18f. Argumentum ad Baculum is an argument which appeals to force and is usually employed when all other arguments have failed. Example: Mother, I don't believe in Santa Claus. - You'd better, or he won't bring you a thing.
19. Irrelevant Conclusion means "proving the wrong conclusion. To disprove a proposition, its contradictory must be proved. If some proposition other than the contradictory is proved, the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion has been committed. This fallacy is frequently used by politicians. To avoid answering a question, they answer another question instead.
For example, to disprove the proposition that all employers exploit the people who work for them, it is necessary to prove that at least some employers do not exploit the people who work for them. If, instead, one were to prove that exploitation of people who work for you is a crime against society, one would commit the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
20. Non Sequitur occurs when a conclusion is drawn from premises that provide no adequate ground for it or which have no relevant connection with it. Example: Man has no soul; for thousands of physicians who have dissected every part of man's body have been unable to find one. Since the supposed soul is a "spiritual" thing, such physical means of attempting to discover it are irrelevant.
21. Speculative Argument occurs in two distinct forms, but both have an alleged deduction of something which "is" from something which "is not".
21a. Hypothesis contrary to facts is created by making an assumption that does not coincide with the facts. This assumption is then elaborated upon "speculatively", pointing out what the consequences would have been if the assumed conditions had been real instead of fictitious. Example: If Napoleon had not been defeated at Waterloo, he would have succeeded in unifying the whole European continent. This would have meant a stabilization of all political and economic conditions and would have made it impossible for a Hitler to come to power in Germany.
21b. What ought to be is argument based upon a chain of reasoning which tries to deduce what "is" from what "ought to be", or which tries to draw conclusions concerning facts from premises concerning the use of words. Example: I ought to do this. Therefore, I can do it, or We desire to see sense and meaning in human existence and in history. Human existence and history, therefore, have sense and meaning.
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Functions of Language
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Devices for Propaganda
Propaganda is defined as an attempt to influence the opinions or actions of others to some predetermined end by appealing to their emotions or prejudices, or by distorting the facts. If propaganda is used to help a "good" cause, we label it "good information". If it is used, instead to aid a "bad" cause, we call it "propaganda". Regardless of whether it is for a "good" cause or a "bad" cause, it is something other than logic. Some propaganda may be furthering a cause which is in accord with logic and some may be furthering a cause which is not in accord with logic, but propaganda is never logic itself.
This part is not going to go into as much detail as the foregoing because propaganda appeals are based upon the same fallacies in reasoning that have already been described. For the most part, they simply will be listed.
1. Appeals to Traditional Patterns of Thought has a title that is self explanatory.
2. Oversimplification is taking complex issues and oversimplifying them in a way that seems to be logical.
3. Relief from Frustration is showing a supposed way out of the the frustrating problems that people may be facing.
4. Rationalization is providing precisely that for people who want something that may be irrational wishful thinking.
5. Providing a Scapegoat is a device which was used by Hitler whereby he blamed the Jews for Germany's problems.
6. Using the Tendency to Worry is a what might be called an appeal to fear. By showing people what might happen to them if something were to occur, or if something were not to occur, the people can be frightened into cooperating with the wishes of the propagandist.
7. Appeal to Ambition and Pride is another means that was used by Hitler to move the majority of the German people to support another war.
8. Identification with Prestigious Groups or Persons uses the tendency of people to want to appear important or on the "winning side".
9. Reinforcement of Projections uses the values and dreams of the people targetted. The propagandist provides a supposed direction for people to move toward their desires and wishes for the future.
DEVICES FOR PROPAGANDA
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Functions of Language
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals
In general, all propaganda devices depend upon an imprecise use of language or a distortion of evidence.
1. Name Calling and Use of Invective is self explanatory.
2. Glittering Generalities is the use of words with emotionally positive overtones to invoke idealism, love of religion, patriotism, generosity, pride, hope, etc.
3. Tabloid Thinking employs one or some of the myriads of clever sayings and slogans to create responses from the people targetted. Example: Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
4. Testimonials is a device used often by TV evangelists.
5. Bifurcation is the same as that mentioned in the section on fallacies.
6. Association is the establishment of the cause of the propagandist to a revered or popular object, person, party, cause, or idea.
7. Identification happens when a propagandist identifies his cause with those targetted and their interests.
8. Band Wagon is calculated to have people "follow the crowd".
9. Card Stacking depends upon distortions, exaggerations, false evidence, forgeries, mis-statements of facts, outright lies, and deceptions of all kinds.
Perhaps the most effective type of card stacking is that in which only one side of an issue is shown. This has become more apparent than ever today with the so-called reporting of events in Iraq. In The California Veteran, the official publication of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Volume 69, Number 4, Brigadier General Michael Walsh, of the Army Corps of Engineers, has much to say about the key issues in Iraq. Among other things, he states:
1. "A lot of information has not been shown in the national media. Contrary to the minimal and pessimistic coverage that does get aired, let me assure you that the fine tradition of the U. S. military engineer rising to a challenge and turning the impossible into the achievable is being done here in Cradle of Civilization."
2. "Every day in Iraq, we see the successes of the U.S. government's reconstruction program" [which consist of]
[A] better essential services where, in many places, there were none;
[B] new and improved schools and medical facilities;
[C] potable water for neighborhoods that did not exist before;
[D] sewage removed from city streets and treated in new facilities;
[E] a restoration of oil export and refinery capacity; and
[F] 75 percent of the country with twice as much [electric] power as before the war."
3. "A lot of the coverage on the progress in Iraq is focused on the struggles in Baghdad. To me, that is a prime example of the media missing the forest for the tree. Baghdad is struggle, a struggle we are winning - albeit slower than elsewhere in Iraq."
The General says a lot more that is too voluminous to mention here. However, his comments show that the mainstream media is practicing card stacking as is consistent with their having been taken over as mentioned below under Goals of the Communists (Fascist Socialists).
10. The Bald-Faced Lie may be used most effectively when it is stated first and then repeated over and over again. People tend to believe what they hear first even after repeated attempts to dislodge the lie from their minds. A repeated lie usually is interpreted as fact by the majority of the populace - especially if the the lie involves issues that require certain forms of expertise which the public lacks. Most of the populace have short or inaccurate memories. They forget the original circumstances of an event or series of events, and this allows a repeated lie to go unchallenged. If the lie is not generally accepted at first, repeatedly telling it gradually causes the those who are memory-poor, ignorant, ill-educated, or emotionally-charged to believe it.
Perhaps the best example of this is the lie that has been, and is being, repeated frequently regarding decisions about Iraq. The lie is Hussein (Iraq) had no weapons of mass destruction. The truth is Hussein (Iraq) did have weapons of mass destruction and Bush never lied about this in any form whatsoever. Anyone who was watching events unfold at the time and who has kept up with them since knows the truth. However, the majority of our people in the United States do not have time to examine all the sources of information available - or perhaps they cannot afford to spend money to acquire the sources of information that are available (such as the book Saddam's Secrets by General Georges Sada). Most do not even know who General Sada is, and most people do not remember seeing on television the seemingly endless columns of trucks moving from Iraq to Syria - or perhaps they were not able to take the time to see this as it occurred. Sada's book is excellent and has what is probably the best encapsulation of Iraq's WMD information available. Pages 128 and 200 are good places to start for information regarding the WMDs - chemical, biological, and nuclear - and almost all of chapter 10 is a detailed account of the truth about these WMDs. I would like to place the entirety of chapter 10 on this site, but there is no way to shorten it due to the detail involved and no way to show all of it without infringing upon General Sada's copyright. The whole book is excellent and well worth the price. The leftwing (communist) media which pervades most of a America today has ignored the truth and repeated their big lie about Bush over and over again until most of the people believe it. The detailed information in Sada's book exposes the left as lying about an issue that is critical to our survival. Consequently, Sada's book has been suppressed by various means.
When using propaganda effectively as the left often does, (1) first claim that the other side is the side that is lying, (2) tell your lie before the other side can say anything about the issue in question, and (3) repeat your lie often for a long period of time. Also be sure that your lie causes emotion to come to the fore in all who hear it so that emotion will eclipse reason on the part of the recipients of the lie. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans can be taken in by this method.
Yes, Hussein did have WMDs, was planning to acquire more, and was planning to use them against Israel and the United States. Part of Hussein's plan was the use of nuclear weapons. Chill will explain why this is so important and should even be understood by the extreme left-wing environmentalists.
A continuing ploy by the left that seems to have succeeded well is lying about President Bush. Again, the lies are repeated and reinforced by other lies until the gullible public actually believes them. The truth about President Bush and the Iraq war was best provided by Senator John Glenn and placed on the internet. It is necessary to click on the menu margin to return here once you have seen the e-mail presentation. The truth may be too much for some to handle - especially if they have been taken in by the neo-democrats (socialist/fascists).
A History Lesson.
As of September 18, 2006, a more detailed explanation of propaganda has been added to this website. It was taken by S. Martin from the same book (An Introduction to Critical Thinking) and updates the book to some extent in language and content.
Long ago it was realized that subconciously we tend to believe what we see above all else (even though we know intellectually that what we see is false). Sound - music especially - add a dimension to sight that tends to overwhelm the intellect. It is wise to realize that propagandists today use computer and movie special effects as well as mood music to create false but very effective propaganda that comes at us so quickly (and often without recourse to a replay) that it does not allow time for careful analysis unless one is very well versed in the devices of propaganda. The foregoing coupled with the propagandists' use of magician's techniques (keeping one interested in one hand while manipulating one's reality with the other) has led us into an age of "super propaganda". S. Martin realized this and has provided the next best means to a college course in countering modern propaganda.
What Everyone Should Know About Political Propaganda
(Quotes, notes, and paraphrases are from An Introduction to Critical Thinking by W. H. Werkmeister)
(A wake-up call for those in the free world.)
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Functions of Language
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals Devices for Propaganda
Hence to fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence.
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Sun Tzu Wu (500 BCE)
Fighting war on the battlefield is the most stupid and primitive way of fighting a war.
The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all but to subvert anything of value in
your enemy's country - be it moral tradition, religion, respect to your authority and leaders,
cultural tradition - anything. Put white against black, old against young, wealth against poor,
and so on - doesn't matter - as long as it disturbs society - as long as it cuts the moral fiber
of the nation it's good. And you just take the country - when everything is subverted, when the
country is disoriented and confused, when it is demoralized and de-stabilized - the crisis will come.
Former KGB agent explaining the wisdom of Sun Tzu Wu
This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 19, 2007
The above quote by the U.S. Senator is an example of how Sun Tzu Wu's principle is being used today by traitors and KGB pawns in the United States. It was spoken less than 60 days after the surge was announced and more than 100 days before it was fully implemented - and is testimony of the power of disinformation upon a naive and gullible American public. Such propaganda is a terrible force - an evil force which uses lies to aid a hidden agenda. Is this quote evidence of the current character of one of America's two major political parties?
From Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, A Tale of Socialism in One City: For the elite that controls city politics, Berkeley is a radical demonstration project - a "beacon", to use a favorite term of the local Left, for the rest of the country. And, indeed, the Berkeley experiment has become an inspiring example for Madison, Santa Monica, Burlington, and other would-be "socialist" towns across the country. It has been lauded as a bastion of progressivism by socialist leaders around the world. In Berkeley itself, however, there is a murmuring in the congregation. Many residents, it seems, who are otherwise quite progressive don't want to live inside a metaphor. There is a bitter self-realization in the graffito that recently appeared on one of the city's walls: "Berkeley - too small to be a nation-state; too big to be an insane asylum."
Radicals have built a formidable political machine in Berkeley, but in the process they have also caused disillusionment of the part of the citizens who believe that the new machine has no soul. The opponents are not only members of the Republican old guard, a long-vanquished minority, but also many who once embraced the experiment in municipal Leftism. People like Bill McKay, for instance, a veteran of Berkeley's thirty-year war - the HUAC demonstrations, the Free Speech Movement, the Vietnam protest, People's Park, and eventually the radical seizure of city hall. "It's OK to joke about socialism in one city," he says, "but it's also necessary to get serious about what the radicals have done during their years in power here. They've divided this city right down the middle, that's what they've done. They've set whites against blacks, landlords against tenants, students against long-term residents, people with kids against people without, and so on. The Berkeley of the past, the place we set out to take over and make over? They've destroyed that city, and replaced it with something vastly inferior. And in the process they've also done something I thought nobody could ever do - they made me into a conservative."
The KGB was considered by many as the Soviet Union's secret police who imprisoned and sometimes tortured and killed those who were considered enemies of the state. But the KGB was much more. It was considered to be both the offense and defense of Soviet operations worldwide. It was composed of at least eighteen departments, and the first of these was "Department A" which was in charge of disinformation. Disinformation meant such things as creating forgeries, false stories, and false public statements. It's purposes were to mislead and deceive the decision-makers of an enemy nation and their public, to disrupt enemy alliances by turning their members against one another, to discredit key members of the opposition, to create discontent and disruption within an enemy nation, and to do anything else that would undermine a nation's will to fight.
Just as a judo master uses his opponent's own force unbalance him, the master of propaganda can use innate forces to de-stabilize a nation. In the United States, the two-party political system can be used to de-stabilize the nation by increasing animosity between members of the parties, providing false information that causes party prejudices to become accepted dogma, creating propaganda that tends to discredit the Constitution, etc. In the United States today, there is no limit to the amount that can be spent to elect a particular candidate - and monetary sources can be easily disguised. Consequently, a foreign country can provide massive amounts of currency to have their candidate elected.
There were many things that the KGB did, each allocated to its own department but almost always using deception in some form. It was the KGB that perfected the tactic of influencing elections in the U. S. through propaganda and providing their candidate with funds. There were KGB moles in high places in the U. S. government that aided and eventually caused commmunism (actually facist socialism) to take over China and the Chinese Nationalists to be forced to live on Taiwan. There were agents ultimately under the direction of the KGB that caused the United States to lose the war in Vietnam (again by using misinformation). The KGB agents in the Manhattan Project - not just the Rosenbergs - gave most of the U. S. atomic secrets to the Russians. It was the KGB that perfected the use of agents as professors in U. S. universities to turn students against the U. S. and alter the history texts to be more in favor socialism, Marxism, and international communism. It was the KGB that caused Cuba to become a Communist nation and to go on to influence other countries in Central and South America. It was the KGB that perfected ways to recruit loyal citizens who often did not realize that they were aiding the Soviet Union in its desire to dominate the world. It was the KGB that perfected terrorism in the modern world and began training terrorists. It was the KGB that perfected the use of small cells of agents working independently within a host nation (just as terrorists do today). It was the KGB that perfected the use of the Soviet embassy and Soviet consulates as centers for their technology to gather intelligence. It was the KGB that perfected the use of the United Nations in New York as a place to harbor Soviet spies which could travel throughout the U. S. It was the KGB that perfected the means of replicating their own organization in other nations - such as the DGI in Cuba - who would report to the KGB.
The entire list of KGB accomplishments is much to long to be shown here. From the examples given it is apparent that sophisticated propaganda used against a naive populace in a democratic republic is as effective as a sending a pack of wolves into a sheep fold.
Today, there is no KGB. However, in its evolution the KGB has had other previous names and, in essence continues to exist with yet another name (the FSB). As Russia's leaders continue in their attempts to re-establish the old Soviet Union, they may still have the goal of world domination. But whether it is Russia with a new name for the KGB, Communist China, Cuba, radical Moslems, or some other enemy, the basic principle of Sun Tzu Wu and the means of its implementation are still being used today against the United States and its allies.
Propaganda in its most sophisticated form must be offset with education if a republic such as the United States is to survive. People must learn how to think as opposed to what to think and how to distinguish reality from fiction. Courses that have been dropped from schools such as American history, world history, government, and critical thinking must be put back into the curriculum. Politically correct texts must be replaced with truthful texts. Teachers who were educated in the time when political correctness was the rule must be re-educated with the unpleasant truths that have been ignored.
The KGB Connections
There is a documentary that was made before the collapse of the Soviet Union called KGB Connections. It is over two hours long and goes into detail in regard to the methods used by the KGB. It also explains what was accomplished by the use of those methods. The DVD version can be found most easily through Historical Aviation, Amazon, or other sources on line - but it is in a 50 movie pack of War Classics on 12 double-sided DVD's. Although most of the pack is not so informative, it does have entertainment value and is not prohibitively expensive. I am most happy to have spent the money on the set just to see the documentary on the KGB. See Highlights and Comments on KGB Connections on this website for more detail.
The Sword and Shield
The above documentary is over two hours long and is fairly comprehensive considering its length. However, probably the best source of KGB history and methods is found in a book with the title The Sword and the Shield by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. Vasili Mitrokhin was a member of the First Chief Directorate (the FCD) of the KGB. In June of 1972, this directorate began moving its headquarters to a building with more space. For the ensuing ten years, Vasili Mitrokhin was responsible for checking and sealing approximately 300,000 files prior to their transfer to the new building. If a file was to be destroyed, Mitrokhin was given the task of destroying it. From these files, Mitrokhin compiled his own private record which was later removed from Russia. This record contains much of the true history of Russia, the Soviet Union, and the various incarnations of the KGB (as opposed to the politically correct fabrications of the KGB). The Sword and the Shield was primarily the result of translating Metrokhin's files into English and publishing them in book form. Needless to say, this book is very, very long - but also very interesting.
Goals of the Communists (Fascist Socialists) Back
Communism - Marxism
Today, the various organizations of fascist socialism are still attacking the free nations of the world. The United States of America is used only as an example of the kind of activity found in many nations. The methods employed to weaken a nation are often subtle and slow enough that those being attacked do not even know that the attack is in progress until it is too late. The victims must be awakened to the danger if they are to employ a defense. However, once having been awakened, the danger can be dealt with easily.
According to a friend who was approached 40 years ago by a Communist Party member in the United States, in their documents were their long-term goals. Two of the most prominent goals were the subversion of the nation's youth and the nation's media. The subversion of the nation's youth is most evident today when we see that
(1) professors are allowed to teach their political views to their students,
(2) members of the armed forces are ostracized or even beaten by leftist students,
(3) a memorial to a WWII Marine hero (Pappy Boyington) is considered inappropriate because he "killed people",
(4) non-leftist campus publications are not allowed to exist or are destroyed by the leftists, and
(5) many colleges and universities have eliminated ROTC from their campuses or made ROTC so unpopular that students are afraid to join.
The media today has been taken over almost entirely by the extreme left and is "teaching" the public to be ashamed of the United States. Examples of this are almost too numerous and too obvious to be mentioned.
The School Problem - A Solution to the School Problem
The incident that triggered the letter below is all too typical of the result of the teachings of the socialist/communist/anti-American faculty and their puppets at Berkeley - and the media take-over by the same type of people. The marine mentions that there was an exercise of constitutional rights - but blocking parking spaces, disrupting traffic on a public road, committing libel, defacing property with graffiti, and being generally abusive are not constitutional rights. In a country like Iraq under Hussein, the protesters would have been taken outside the city, forced to dig a mass grave, forced to jump into it, and then would have been covered up with earth (unless they were tortured for a time first).
Of course, the media coverage by NBC, ABC, and CBS mentioned only that the students were protesting and did mention the fact that some of their actions were cowardly, criminal, traitorous, and against the constitutional rights of others. However, the point is that for the most part, these protesters were the ignorant and unwitting dupes of the communist movement in the United States.
Subject: Letter from the Marine officer recruiter in Berkeley CA
An Open Letter to Code Pink
By *Richard Lund, Captain, USMC
While the protest that you staged in front of my office on Wednesday, Sept. 26th, was an exercise of your constitutional rights, the messages that you left behind were insulting, untrue, and ultimately misdirected. Additionally, from the comments quoted in the Berkeley Daily Planet article, it is clear that you have no idea what it is that I do here. Given that I was unaware of your planned protest, I was unable to contest your claims in person, so I will therefore address them here.
First, a little bit about who I am: I am a Marine captain with over eight years of service as a commissioned officer. I flew transport helicopters for most of my time in the Marine Corps before requesting orders to come here. Currently, I am the officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area. My job is to recruit, interview, screen, and evaluate college students and college graduates that show an interest in becoming officers in the Marine Corps. Once they are committed to pursuing this program, I help them apply, and if selected, I help them prepare for the rigors of Officer Candidate School and for the challenges of life as a Marine officer. To be eligible for my programs, you have to be either a full-time college student or a college graduate. I don't pull anyone out of school, and high school students are not eligible.
I moved my office to Berkeley in December of last year. Previously, it was located in an old federal building in Alameda . That building was due to be torn down and I had to find a new location. I choose our new site because of its proximity to U.C. Berkeley and to the BART station. Most of the candidates in my program either go to Cal or to one of the schools in San Francisco, the East Bay , or the North Bay . Logistically, the Shattuck Square location was the most convenient for them.
Next, you claim that I lie. I have never, and will never, lie to any individual that shows an interest in my programs. I am upfront with everything that is involved at every step of the way and I go out of my way to ensure that they know what to expect when they apply. I tell them that this is not an easy path. I tell them that leading Marines requires a great deal of self-sacrifice. I tell them that, should they succeed in their quest to become a Marine officer, they will almost certainly go to Iraq . In the future, if you plan to attack my integrity, please have the courtesy to explain to me specifically the instances in which you think that I lied.
Next, scrawled across the doorway to my office, you wrote, "Recruiters are Traitors." Please explain this one. How exactly am I a traitor? Was I a traitor when I joined the Marine Corps all those years ago? Is every Marine, therefore, a traitor? Was I a traitor during my two stints in Iraq ? Was I a traitor when I was delivering humanitarian aid to the victims of the tsunami in Sumatra ? Or do you only consider me a traitor while I am on this job? The fact is, recruitment is and always has been a part of maintaining any military organization. In fact, recruitment is a necessity of any large organization. Large corporations have employees that recruit full-time. Even you, I'm sure, must expend some effort to recruit for Code Pink. So what, exactly, is it that makes me a traitor?
The fact is this: any independent nation must maintain a military (or be allied with those who do) to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. Regardless of what your opinions are of the current administration or the current conflict in Iraq , the U.S. military will be needed again in the future. If your counter-recruitment efforts are ultimately successful, who will defend us if we are directly attacked again as we were at Pearl Harbor ? Who would respond if a future terrorist attack targets the Golden Gate Bridge , the BART system, or the UC Berkeley clock tower? And, to address the most hypocritical stance that your organization takes on its website, where would the peace keeping force come from that you advocate sending to Darfur ?
Finally, I believe that your efforts in protesting my office are misdirected. I agree that your stated goals of peace and social justice are worthy ones. War is a terrible thing that should only be undertaken in the most dire, extreme, and necessary of circumstances. However, war is made by politicians. The conflict in Iraq was ordered by the president and authorized by Congress. They are the ones who have the power to change the policy in Iraq , not members of the military. We execute policy to the best of our ability and to the best of our human capacity. Protesting in front of my office may be an easy way to get your organization in the headlines of local papers, but it doesn't further any of your stated goals.
To conclude, I don't consider myself a "recruiter". I am a Marine who happens to be on recruiting duty. As such, I conduct myself in accordance with our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. I will never sacrifice my honor by lying to anyone that walks into my office. I will never forsake the courage that it takes to restrain myself in the face of insulting and libelous labels like liar and traitor. And, most importantly, I will never waver from my commitment to helping individuals who desire to serve their country as officers in the Marine Corps.
*Captain Richard Lund is the United States Marine Corps, officer selection officer for the northern Bay Area.
Back to Weakening the Military
Eye on Terrorist Threat
(From VFW magazine, March 2008 issue.)
The House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus, though virtually unknown, is paying close attention to the threat posed by militant Islam. Founded by Representativ Sue Myrick (R - N.C.) in 2007, the caucus now included 118 members of Congress.
Members are especially concerned about radical infiltration of American institutions, such as universities. Because of political correctness, says Myrick, we are "sugarcoating" this genuine threat. Educating the general public about the menace is top on the agenda of this bipartisan congressional group, Myrick says. "We need to shed the veil of political correctness that shields government officials from speaking out against them," she told the Investor's Business Daily.
[It would appear that Congress is only beginning to understand the threat - now that it has actually penetrated down to the grade-school level. Nor do they understand that the communists are in the forefront of the infiltration into colleges and universities - and the professors in these institutions write the textbooks for the lower-grade levels.]
In another approach to the same goals, the KGB clones have infiltrated the political right in a fairly successful attempt to push it far enough to the right that the it might be attacked and and discredited. By changing the Pledge of Allegiance to include the words "under God" (placed in the pledge during the Eisenhower administration), the original goal of unifying the public as loyal Americans has been thwarted. Religion was never meant to be united with the state, and a requirement to believe in God (usually with the connotation of being male and in the image of man) was never meant to be part of patriotism. Attempting to enforce religious views by legislation is another means of dividing the nation. The Pledge is falling into disuse now because
(1) of the controversy about the phrase "under God"
(2) the word "republic" is not in accord with the leftist desire to advocate a pure democracy, and
(3) the communist leftists do not want there to be allegiance to the nation.
The Pledge should be changed back to its traditional wording (without the phrase "under God") and re-instated in our grade schools and other appropriate places. Otherwise, we have allowed our enemies to be victorious once again. As a matter of interest, a Baptist minister was initially responsible for the Pledge and he had sense enough to know better than to introduce religion into the wording. Click on the following for a short history of the Pledge.
The Pledge of Allegiance
If at least some of the information in the following linked articles is true, it would appear that Communist moles in certain religious organizations have managed to take over the American military and the American military academies to a great extent, although the take-over is not quite complete. Note that the modus operandi is in keeping with the technique mentioned farther down of pitting one enemy against another - in this case, Christians against Moslems. However, it also appears that the site given is somewhat liberal in nature - so very possibly it is dedicated to Bush bashing and other tactics typical of the Communist left in America.
Regardless, if the information provided statistically in the article is true, then much is wrong in our military and our military academies. Because those in politics often lie, quote incorrect statistics, and filter information to suit their cause, we must be wary when the intent is designed, at least in part, to make us dislike our leaders. Yet, because there is often some truth sprinkled in with the lies, such articles can be useful in discovering certain facts. This is a case where we can learn by checking other sources to see how much is unfounded propaganda and how much is truth - and if there is enough truth, action is necessary to correct the problem.
Evangelical Take-Over - Pentagon's Prayer Team
Lying to Your Own
The KGB (in its various incarnations), its clones, and similar versions have had a policy since their inception to do record the truth but publish another version to the populace of their parent nations. In some cases, the truth is destroyed in even the organization's archives. The destruction of the truth was one of Mitrokhin's duties in the KGB. The lies told to the populace served the purpose of disguising the horror and deception used by the KGB so that the KGB would appear as a heroic organization of sweetness and light. The truth was never told in its entirety and was most often completely obliterated.
Consequently, the people of communist nations are victims rather than villains. More often than not, they eventually discover that they have been duped - and they revolt. Usually, the revolt is not successful. If it is successful, the success is usually short-lived because those who were in power simply alter their party's name and the name of its organizations (like the KGB) and achieve power once again.
On the internet, today, one can find many examples of both truth and outright lies. Often this is the case on the same internet location.   According to a short article in The Watchdog, sources such as Wikipedia that many people seem to believe to be an actual encyclopedia, are filled with lies masquerading as truth. Anyone can alter the pages of Wikipedia so that they can place thereon whatever lie there that is convenient for their agenda. I know that the online information, including that found on Wikipedia, is often false because I have discovered it to be so - and this includes even the top-rated search engines in some instances. The good sets of encyclopeiae such a Britannica and Americana have devolved into both printed editions (from other companies of course) and online editions with information that is either adulterated, diluted, or both in its content. The annuals (which were supposed to keep the set up to date) were once as thick as one of the books of the set, but are now less than one-third as thick. This is contrary to the contract between the company and the owner of the set, but is typical of the movement to reduce the populace to ignorant, brainwashed slaves.
The book, Party of Defeat, by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson goes into detail, with excellent back-up information, on how the Democrats in the United States lie to their own to achieve their goals. When a party acts as if it has become fascist and communist it advertises the fact that the Communist Party in America has taken it over. The "radical left" is merely another way of saying the "Communist Fascists" or their pawns.
Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg is a history of the American Left from Mussolini to the present-day Democrats in the United States. It explains why liberals seek to involve themselves in everyones' lives and to dictate how those lives are to be lived. For instance, note that the health care systems invisioned by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are designed to force everyone to pay into them, a socialist/fascist system designed to create another government monopoly, more government bureaucracy, and more government control over its citizens.
Shadow Warriors by Kenneth R. Timmerman is the untold story of traitors, sobateurs, and the party of surrender (the Democrats).
Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz unmasks the witting and unwitting support and comfort given to our enemies by the Democratic political leaders and powerful members of the anti-American left. The fascist left lies blatantly to the American public, and uses false names for their anti-American efforts - such as the Fairness Doctrine as a title for their attempt to prevent freedom of speech for those who do not favor their cause.
David Horowitz' Writing
One Enemy Against Another
The Moslem nations are not friends of the Communist (fascist socialist) nations even though the Communist nations prefer to remain friendly enough to buy oil. Part of the wisdom of Sun Tzu Wu is to pit one enemy against another. Thus the use of Moslems to cripple the democratic republics is aided by the Communist nations. Even though some of the Moslem nations are our enemies, they are often merely acting as pawns in the unwitting employ of the Communists. Why? Because if the United States fails, the rest of the world suffers - including the Arab oil producing nations. Perhaps the rulers these nations do not care if even their own standard of living drops to stone-age levels - after all, it is essentially a religious war they are fighting. For a good view of a basic truth that many Americans fail to grasp, click on:
Sleepwalking into a Nightmare
The following paragraph was added on March 29, 2009.
It is doubtful that the infiltration of the United States by Moslems will weaken us immediately. However, in an attempt to know our enemy even if they are supposed to be our friend, the following was in the April 6, 2009, issue of National Review. In Saudi Arabia (one of our "friends"), in the city of Jeddah, a young woman was abducted and gang-raped. When she discovered that she was pregnant, she tried to have an abortion. This was discovered and she was brought into court. The judge listened to her story and then ruled that she had committed adultery. She was given one year in prison and a hundred lashes after she had the child. In another instance, a 75-year-old grandmother was called upon by two men, one of whom had been breast-fed by this lady. The other was delivering bread to her. She was sentenced to forty lashes for being in the presence of men who were not family. Neither of the women are expected to survive the floggings. Yet many lesbians here in America are championing radical Moslem bombers as the result of being recruited by the communists who claim to be doing them a favor.
Truth vs Deception
Propaganda is designed to invoke emotion - which causes most people to override reason. When one discovers that a document, movie, book, or other means of communication tends to favor emotional arguments, it should be considered an instrument of propagandists. This is probably the best way to eliminate the wheat from the chaff for most of us because the mixture of lies versus half-truths that can be introduced is difficult to comprehend. However, there are other means to discover whether or not a complete truth is being presented.
Consider the Source
One can discover much from the nature of the one who publishes a form of communication. What is likely to be his or her real motive in publishing? What is the the person's background? What are the person's political affiliations? What are the person's qualifications? How does the person gain from the publication? How much money will the person gain from the publication? Has the person been caught lying in the past? Is the person or persons who publish attempting to attack the Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution?
Is it from artists such as those in Hollywood?
Hollywood has been largely a tool of the extreme left for generations. Most of us are aware that the movies we see may be "based on fact", "inspired by certain events", or are simply complete fabrications. Those responsible for making movies are usually interested in first making money with their picture. Therefore, truth is not a factor to be considered. Instead, sensationalism, sex-appeal, violence, extreme views, shock value, and artistic merit are factors considered. With very few exceptions, productions from the artists in Hollywood should never be considered more than some form of fiction. After all, artists are not usually versed in things like political science, economics, history, physics, critical thinking, or anything other than what makes a box-office attraction. Even when a film is made from a book that was written by a qualified person, the fine print in the Hollywood contract usually allows anything and everything in the book to be misrepresented or completely changed.
Attack on the Bill of Rights
First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade-unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade-unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
[The German Protestant, Martin Niemoeller's comment to students asking why no one in Germany stood up for the Jews against the Nazi persecution.]
Even in the United States - which is a democratic republic - the democratic majority can and does sometimes infringe upon the rights of the minority. So we have what is known as a Bill of Rights which defines what rights cannot be taken from us. All of us are minorities in at least a few issues and we need to have these rights defined and kept intact. Perhaps our most important right is our freedom of speech.
The large volume of lies and half-truths produced by the communist left is often a means to make citizens wish to infringe upon the right to free speech. Remember that infringing upon the right to free speech through legislation that punishes liars can backfire. Who determines what is supposed to be a lie and what is supposed to be the truth? How can the real truth be presented should the nation be faced with an administration that punishes those who tell the truth? And should the right to free speech be infringed, it would create a precedent of infringement that would ultimately lead to the infringement or removal of other parts of the Bill of Rights. Far better that we find other ways to discover and discredit liars and traitors than to attack our freedom of speech.
But bear in mind that freedom of speech does not include libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and other forms of persecution of others. One of our problems today is the outrageous fees of lawyers and their hold on our system of justice which often prevents us from taking legal action against those who misuse the first amendment.
Attack on the Second Amendment
Quotes presented by Representative John Doolittle on May 16, 2007.
Laws that forbid the carrying of firearms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law abiding] deprived the use of them. Thomas Paine
Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense. John Adams The attack on the right to bear arms is an appeal to emotion that is used by the far left. It ignores certain facts:
1. People should have the right of self-defense. Legislation that removes firearms from the public simply helps the criminal to act with impunity. Furthermore, the firearm is a means of allowing women and smaller men to actively and successfully oppose a burglar or attacker. Without a firearm in the home, a woman is at the mercy of a criminal. Firearms are not impossible to produce and infringement of the right to bear arms means that the black market on firearms would increase many times over what it is now - and organized crime would benefit immensely. This was demonstrated during the prohibition era when alcolic beverages were outlawed. Statistics have shown that areas where the right to bear arms has been infringed are areas where crime has increased dramatically. Criminals will actually migrate to areas where their actions are almost unopposed.
Recently, the socialist anti-American left in the United States has used the Virginia Tech massacre as a reason to rid the United States of firearms. Here was case where firearms were not allowed in the area. Consequently, the law-abiding students and instructors had no means of self defense. A maniac (who would not obey the law) was able to easily kill 32 defenseless people. The police cannot be everywhere - nor can they predict violent events. The only way to offset such shootings is for the instructors, some of the students, or both to be trained in the use of firearms and to be armed or to have arms available to them. This may not be enough to stop such incidents, but it would be way to reduce the casualties from such incidents by having a means available to stop the murderer quickly. Likewise, the only way that skyjackings can be adequately contained is for the pilots or air marshals to be trained in use of firearms and to be armed or have access to firearms. Of course, the socialist anti-American left is largely a tool of communist China, Russia, and the KGB clones - so they will continue to use disinformation and emotionally-charged erroneous arguments in an attempt to disarm the American populace. They realize that many Americans are very naive and gullible, and are doing all they can to make sure that these remain naive and gullible while infecting other Americans.
2. In the past, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other patriotic organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, and the Boy Scouts of America have sponsored the training of our youth in the use of firearms. Training in the safe use of rifles, pistols, and shotguns (all taught by NRA instructors) and marksmanship with these have led to a nation in which a large percentage of the youth instinctively knows how to use firearms properly. As our youth matures and become servicemen, the soldiers and marines of the nation are better marksman than would have been the case without the early training, the service pilots and gunners are more effective - and there are less cases of death from "friendly fire". Contrary to what the anti-gun leftists tell us, the strength of our nation is largely dependent upon familiarity with the tool called the "gun" - and the safest way to deal with guns is to be trained in their use.
3. The founding fathers placed the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights in part to be certain that a tyrannical government, whether our own or from without, would be better overthrown. A populace with firearms is a deterrent to extreme measures from our own government. It is also a deterrent to aggression from invaders. In Germany before WWII, the Nazis told the populace that they must register their personal firearms, and that their firearms would not be taken from them. Consequently, the people registered their firearms. Shortly afterward, their firearms were taken from them and the holocaust began. This is but one example of many regarding the need to keep our arms to ourselves, unregistered, and to avoid any infringement on our right to bear arms.
The following was placed on the internet some months ago. It seems to be factually correct although I did not check the dates.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated..
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
These are the facts. . . .make up your own mind. If guns are allowed, law abiding citizens will do what the law requires, criminals will not. . .& consequently they will be the only ones with guns. If your shot it makes no difference if the gun is legal or illegal. . . .your shot!!!!
Upon checking with Snopes, I found that there was a lot of beating around the bush with why statistics can lie. This was aimed at the figures used regarding Australia. Since these statistics have been found in other sources, it caused me to wonder about the validity of Snopes. Then I found that Snopes was publishing information bordering upon outright lies regarding the type of guns taken away and the previous history of firearm control in Australia. The facts about the other countries are difficult, if not impossible to successfully refute, and Snopes attempted to place attention elsewhere. There was no question that the writer at Snopes was biased.
Why the Gun IS Civilization
By Marko Kloos
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as a source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of the mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger - even an armed one - can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would "only" result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party conflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip, at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as force equalizer if it weren't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I'm looking for fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I am afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
For more, go to Marko's website:
Columbine to Virginia Tech to NIU:
Gun-Free Zones or Killing Fields?
by *John R. Lott, Jr.
Taken from an e-mail passed around the internet.
As Northern Illinois University restarts classes this week, one thing is clear: Six minutes proved too long. It took six minutes before the police were able to enter the classroom that horrible Thursday, and in that short time five people were murdered, 16 wounded.
Six minutes is actually record-breaking speed for the police arriving at such an attack, but it was simply not fast enough. Still, the police were much faster than at the Virginia Tech attack last year.
The previous Thursday, five people were killed in the city council chambers in Kirkwood, Mo. There was even a police officer already there when the attack occurred.
But, as happens time after time in these attacks when uniformed police are there, the killers either wait for the police to leave the area or they are the first people killed. In Kirkwood, the police officer was killed immediately when the attack started. People cowered or were reduced to futilely throwing chairs at the killer.
Just like attacks last year at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb., the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and the recent attack at the Tinley Park Mall in Illinois, or all the public school attacks, they had one thing in common: They took place in "gun-free zones," where private citizens were not allowed to carry their guns with them.
The malls in Omaha and Salt Lake City were in states that let people carry concealed handguns, but private property owners are allowed to post signs that ban guns; those malls were among the few places in their states that chose such a ban.
In the Trolley Square attack, an off-duty police officer fortunately violated the ban and stopped the attack. The attack at Virginia Tech or the other public school attacks occur in some of the few areas within their states that people are not allowed to carry concealed handguns.
It is not just recent killings that are occurring in these gun-free zones. The Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald's in Southern California had 21 people shot dead in 1984.
Nor are these horrible incidents limited to just gun-free zones in the U.S. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries — including France, Germany and Switzerland — have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst in Germany resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators.
At some point you would think the media would notice that something is going on here, that these murderers aren't just picking their targets at random. And this pattern isn't really too surprising. Most people understand that guns deter criminals.
If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, "This home is a gun-free zone"? But that is what all these places did.
Even when attacks occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun.
In cases from the Colorado Springs church shooting last December, in which a parishioner who was given permission by the minister to carry her concealed gun into the church quickly stopped the murder, to an attack last year in downtown Memphis to the Appalachian Law School to high schools in such places as Pearl, Miss., concealed handgun permit holders have stopped attacks well before uniformed police could possibly have arrived. Just a few weeks ago, Israeli teachers stopped a terrorist attack at a school in their country.
Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one of these multiple-victim public shootings where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.
With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S., and with states starting to have right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Those who lose their permits for any gun-related violation are measured in the hundredths or thousandths of a percentage point.
We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools. Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school. There is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem.
Though in a minority, a number of universities — from large public schools such as Colorado State and the University of Utah to small private schools such as Hamline in Minnesota — let students carry concealed handguns on school property.
Many more schools, from Dartmouth College to Boise State University, let professors carry concealed handguns. Again, with no evidence of problems.
Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.
No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill. With all the media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones.
Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks.
*John Lott is the author of the book, Freedomnomics upon which this piece is based and is a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.
An unambiguous right
2nd Amendment bars regulation of people's ability to bear arms
by Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson
From USA Today, Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Compelled to take up arms to regain their liberties as Englishmen, America's founders knew that even the constitutional republic they had established could threaten the freedoms for which they had fought. In the First Amendment, they established a first line of defense - the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" - not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free state."
Their foremost concern was the precipitating events of the American Revolution, wherein British troops in Massachusetts and Virginia seized American muskets, cannon, and powder - actions the Declaration of Independence calls "a design to reduce [the colonists] under absolute despotism.
Entrusting the nation's sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government's military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.
Thus, the amendment's "well regulated militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment's "keep and bear arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles which are both the "lineal descendants of... founding-era weapons (applying a 2007 court of appeals test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for a high-sounding reason such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, [but] only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.
More arms, less crime
Supreme Court should reject D.C. Gun Ban, uphold ownership right
by Larry Pratt
From USA Today, Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The Supreme Court should agree to hear District of Columbia v. Heller and uphold the majority opinion of the federal appeals court.
Heller presents the Supreme Court with a clear choice as to whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms or a collective right of states to have a militia. Judge Lawrence Silberman's opinion for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court presents a strong case for individual rights.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has already stated that whenever "the people" is mentioned in the Bill of Rights that it refers to the same "class of persons." So if "the people" in the Second Amendment doesn't refer to all of the people, then it doesn't in the First and Fourth Amendments either.
In the USA, the people are the sovereigns. They are the "We the people" who established and ordained the government, and they were expected to own firearms in the defense of their free society. More than that, people were required by the legislatures to own and possess firearms.
Those who would claim that the National Guard fulfills this function in modern society are forgetting that the Guard is ultimately controlled by the federal government, rather than We the People.
One of Washington's principal arguments for its gun ban is that it's needed as a crime-fighting tool. Say what? In 2005, FBI data reported a murder rate there of 35 per 100,000 residents. Compare that with the nearby surburban county of Fairfax, Va. (with nearly twice the population - and the traffic); the murder rate there was 0.3 per 100,000.
John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and author of More Guns, Less Crime, has shown through his massive analysis of crime data, for each county throughout the country, that laws that encourage folks to carry concealed weapons lower crime. Washington's crime will come under control when citizens are able to defend themselves with guns.
The district already has an effective crime-fighting tool if it will use it - the Second Amendment.
Then It Happened
I was watching public television on June 29, 2008, when it was mentioned that the United States Supreme Court had announced its decision on the Washington D.C. gun ban. As expected, the lower court's ruling was upheld and the Supreme Court declared the gun ban unconstitutional. Also as expected, four of the justices voted to keep the gun ban. Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of our Bill of Rights, the fact that the four opposing justices are "liberal" and anti-gun (when they are part of what is supposed to be the most conservative body in our government) is appalling. That fact shows how far we have gone down as a nation in allowing International Communism to take over.
After the decision by the Supreme Court, the "leftists" were whining. One who was debating the issue stated that criminals could still acquire firearms by stealing them - and, therefore, no citizen should have them. This idiot was not around to learn about prohibition and bootlegging. Organized crime would love a gun ban for all citizens because then (just like in prohibition with liquor) organized crime could manufacture and sell guns just like illegal drugs are sold today.
The Communists (also known today as leftists, progressives, liberals, and a number of names that should not be mentioned in the presence of ladies and children) have gone beyond the mere infiltration of most of the major media. Their propaganda against our leaders and for their own anti-American agents has succeeded along with their infiltration and take-over of American schools and universities. Each new generation of children has been indoctrinated farther with socialist/Marxist ideas of government entitlement, revolt against parental authority, drug use, self pity, state supremacy as opposed to individual rights, and like ideas. At least three generations have been exposed to this barrage that is designed to ultimately destroy America as a free nation. There has also been "social" promotion from one grade to the next, "political correctness", a removal of tradition, history, and necessary skills - to the point that most of the younger generation are terribly ignorant. In fact, they are too ignorant to realize that they are ignorant.
Now enough of the young people have reached voting age to elect the enemy (Barack Obama, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, and other less well-known figures). Those elected by the ignorant have been hard at work to destroy America. They are ones who place anti-American justices in the Supreme Court. When one more Supreme Court justice is replaced by a "liberal" judge, Americans will probably have lost the war to the enemy.
Many Americans prefer to ignore what is happening. Indeed, they are asleep and have no idea of the rude awakening that is coming. Communists promise a utopia in which the state is supreme, the owner of all industry and agriculture, the protector of the people, and the source of everyone's upkeep. In practice, Communism (socialism) has failed miserably. In a socialistic state, those in power make the rules - and democracy is usurped by dictators like Hitler or Stalin. There isn't sufficient incentive for anyone to advance because there is almost no individual ownership of property and no material recognition of a job well done. Supply and demand are not automatically satisfied. Instead, committees decide which goods are produced and where they are sent. In practice, there are never enough goods at the proper places and people spend time waiting in line only to discover that they are too late. For more detail, go to some of the other parts of this website such as Communism.
What came to be called Communism actually began in Germany as Democratic Socialism. It was exported to Russia where it eventually became known as Communism. Russia exported it to almost every nation where it proved to be a means of bringing many nations down to the same level as that found in Russia. Communism has not proved to work as advertised - and is actually a means of gaining power for an elite.
True to their Communist origins, the new Democrats have done all they could since shortly after the 9/11 attack to discredit the Bush administration, prevent the success of the war effort, sabotage the economy, and create discontent and antagonism among Americans. David Horowitz goes into more detail in his writings - although anyone of the old school who is still capable of rational thought can see what has been happening.
The new Democrats have lied about the WMDs (there were DMDs in Iraq - and Saddam had made a deal with Communist China for more). They have lied about Bush's motives for going into Iraq. They have lied about Bush and Cheney in regard to their personal lives and business dealings. They have lied about their own past actions, They have lied about the second amendment and about the statistics of everything to do with guns. In fact, they appear have no idea of what truth is - and why should they since it is quite apparent that they are literally enemy agents either sent here as such or recruited to do the duties of enemy agents. See more details in Highlights and Comments on KGB Connections on this website.
From Obama to Get the Dems "Barack" in the Business of Gun Control by Erich Pratt.
...The concealed carry of firearms is another importan issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.
In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws...
[Unfortunately, John McCain's record on gun control is at least as bad Obama's according to an article by John Velleco. After McCain's Campaign Finance Reform bombed out, he decided to join the anti-gun crowd. During his presidential run in 2000, he joined Handgun Control Inc. which later was re-named The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and then re-named again Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). McCain began pushing legislation which would force citizens to lock up their guns securely in the home, making every gun useless for home defense. In 2001, McCain graduated from his role as a supporter of anti-gun legislation to become a lead sponsor, attempting to prevent gun shows. The legislation failed, but McCain is still a strong supporter of those who wish to kill our Second Amendment rights.]
Republic vs Democracy
The word "republic" is defined as: A state in which the sovereignty resides in the people or a certain portion of the people, and the legislative and administrative powers are lodged in officers elected by and representing the people.
The word "democracy" is defined as: A theory of government in which, in its purest form, holds that the state should be controlled by all the people, each sharing equally in privileges, duties, and responsibilities and each participating in person in the government, as in the city-states of ancient Greece.
Adverse propaganda often attempts to use the word "democracy" excessively and is advocating a pure democracy as would be the case should elections be decided by popular vote or should the Senate be chosen by population rather than geographic area. The reason that the Pledge of Allegiance uses the word "republic" rather than "democracy" is that the United States is a republic - not a democracy. A democracy is "rule by the majority". Majority rule is the worst form of dictatorship because everyone is, in some manner, a minority. Majority rule means more laws and less freedom which eventually leads to no freedom. In the U.S. we have representative government with a system of checks and balances, The House of Representatives is composed of representatives by population and favors states with larger populations which could dominate states with smaller populations. The Senate is composed of representatives based upon geographic area - two per state. This prevents states with larger populations from dominating those with smaller populations. The President has veto power which is another check upon possible bad legislation. Finally, the Supreme Court is there to protect our constitutional rights and to be sure that legislation, which has passed both the House and the Senate and has been signed by the President, is in accord with the Constitution.
Weakening or Destroying the United States Armed Forces
In the first paragraph of the Constitution of the United States we see: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America...
The first paragraph of Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States includes the statement: The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
The above statements show the duties of the federal government which include the common defense (in the older spelling "defence"). This means that Congress is supposed to establish the United States armed forces and maintain them. In fact, it would be treason to fail to maintain them. It is this primary duty that supercedes any supposed duties not mentioned in the Constitution such as entitlements which have been legislated into existence by the leftists, and pork barrel projects legislated into existence by greedy politicians. Bear in mind that the federal budget has almost always kept the federal government in the red. Entitlements and pork barrel spending steal dollars needed by the military if the military is to be adequate in its role to protect the nation. Furthermore, such treasonous activities have caused the United States to lose the Panama Canal (Communist China has it now), to become indebted to our enemies (Communist China particularly), to devalue the U.S. dollar (which increases our indebtedness), and more. Moles who represent foreign intervention within Congress, and those members of Congress who put themselves first should be regarded as enemy agents or traitors and punished accordingly.
[Social Democrats, Communists, Progressives, Liberals are all different aliases for those who began in Germany and were most well-known as Nazis. Those who are not familiar with their history may find much of it on Communism on this website. The Nazis in Germany were called Social Democrats. Those in Russia changed their name to Communists primarily because the hated Germans had a similar name for their party. In the United States, the public caught on the true nature of the Communists, so they changed their name to Progressives and then to Liberals.]
[The true definition of a communist was one who is in a commune, a self-governing community or the people of such a community. This name does not describe the true nature of International Communism and was chosen because it was innocuous. The true definition of a liberal (politically) was "one inclined to democratic or republican ideas as opposed to monarchical or aristocratic." Today, the one-time Communists call themselves liberals and appear to have taken over the Democratic Party. Eventually, the public will discover this new deception and another name will most likely be used. Regardless of the name, these people believe in a one-party system in which the government owns and controls all as a bureaucratic monopoly. They can be known by their actions rather than their words - which are usually lies.]
Those within our government who are truly dedicated to the nation and the armed forces are to be commended - especially since they must fight against the enemies within their own legislative bodies or organizations.
What follows are examples from the July/August issue of the Uniformed Services Journal that illustrate the way traitors in Congress have asserted themselves.
Letter to the Editor by John E. McDaniel, USAF retired [This is typical of how the members of our military feel when promises are not kept by those they defended]: Where is the free medical care that was promised at re-enlistment time after 1946 until retirement? It appears that with monthly deductions from Social Security for Medicare and yearly deductibles for Medicare and TRICARE that real money is being paid by us now for our health care. I can't take much more of this free stuff!
From J. Stroud, USA retired: Ask these budget-cutting elected people how they can break promises, cut military benefits, and charge wounded servicemembers for their medical treatment. Then ask them why we should trust them and recommend to our children a term in military service?
Those who have never been in service cannot appreciate the dedication needed to take an underpaid job to preserve the nation. It is to the enemy agent's benefit to break the promises made to the military man who gave his life to service. And the greedy politician is merely acting as if he were an enemy agent. Those who serve and their families undergo hardships far in excess of the average civilian. Often, they give their health or even their lives to the nation.
From the same magazine is another example. This time it appears that it is the Administration that is the villain and Congress who rides the white horse. However, wasn't it Congress who first authorized the DoD-created plan that they now might decide to prohibit? And who in the DoD was the villain who decided that promises to the military might be broken. It is one thing to make a promise to the military at the time of enlistment - and apparently quite another to actually keep the promise. ...current law gives authority to the Administration to go forward with its excessive increase in premiums and fees for the military healthcare plan TRICARE. If Congress does not prohibit TRICARE health and pharmacy fee increases, the Pentagon plan remains available to take these dollars from the pockets of military retirees. In basic terms, the DoD plan calls for steep increases in TRICARE premiums to a level at or near the current Federal Employee Health Benefits Program or so-called generous private-sector plans over a 3 to 5 year period.
The importance of getting Congress to prohibit DoD enforcing its plan is highlighted in Congressional Budget Office report (House Rpt. 110-652, part 2.) According to the report: "The Administration has the authority to implement the proposed copayment changes under current law. In each of the past several years, the Congress has prohibited DoD from making such changes. The current prohibition expires on Sept. 30, 2008. Given this history, CBO assumes that there is a 50 percent probability that DoD will implement this proposed copayment structure in fiscal year 2009 absent any direction from Congress."
Under Medicare Reimbursement Rate Legislation: ...last December lawmakers avoided a steep reduction in doctor's reimbursements under Medicare when they approved a six-month delay in the pay cut originally scheduled Jan. 1. That action set the stage for an even steeper 10.6 percent cut effective July 1, unless Congress blocks it.
In early June, Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), and Ranking Member, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), submitted separate legislation to halt the physician reimbursement rate cut. There are many similarities between the two plans. Both seek to stop 10.6 percent payment reduction, provide physicians with a 1.1 percent increase in 2009, address the reimbursement rate issue for a period of 18 months, create electronic prescribing requirements and increase payments to physicians serving rural areas.
For months lawmakers have been at odds over how to pay for the reimbursement rate fix. That appears to be the greatest difference between the two plans. It is apparent that lawmakers from both sides want to stop the cuts so we remain hopeful that the dispute can be resolved.
Congress is under considerable pressure to prevent this reduction and preserve beneficiaries' [military retirees and their families] access to medical services [quality care]. [In this time of inflation due to high gas prices, it is very poor judgement to reduce payments to healthcare providers rather than to increase them in accord with the rate of inflation. More and more doctors each year are deciding not to take new patients who are covered by Medicare.]
The military has always been underpaid and increases for inflation are always far lower than actual inflation. As a rule, the rent is always greater than the housing allowance and increases in the housing allowance are meant correct this problem. Yet, increases in off-base housing allowances are known in advance by the landlords and stolen from the military families as soon as they are granted. As for pay raises, here is an example from the same magazine. Another important element of the House Bill [H.R. 5658] is the effort to restore readiness and to support our men and women in uniform and their families. The bill includes a 3.9 percent pay raise which is one-half of one percent higher than the budget request and private sector raises as measured by the Employment Cost Index (ECI).
The pay increase marks the 10th consecutive year of pay raises above ECI and in doing so the measure would reduce the gap between military and private-sector pay to 2.9 percent from a high of nearly 14 percent in 1999.
For those who might not understand this, the military pay was 14 percent below private-sector pay in 1999, and it has been gradually catching up until with the passage of this bill, it will be only 2.9 percent below private-sector pay. Of course, the bill might not be passed by the Senate, and could be amended. In any case, there will be no attempt to make up for the years of underpayment, let alone the interest that should be paid - but this is normal and why many highly-trained, expensively-trained military people decide not to re-enlist, causing the nation to lose more dollars in the training of new people.
In most societies, it is true that no one likes go to war - especially those who have been in one before. So we have the peaceniks which are either those who are attempting to destroy a nation's will to fight, or those who are incapable of understanding the true nature of peace. Peace is not a cause. Instead, it is a consequence. When Hitler decided to take over Europe, there could have been peace by simply failing to resist his take-over. The same applies to Japan's attempt to take over the Pacific Islands and the places which would provide it with oil. Peace is the result of failure to fight. It can be attained by nations respecting one another and playing fairly - or by those who are attacked simply succumbing to slavery or death. Consequently, when one is advocating peace as the major issue, his words should be suspect. Often, they are just another means of attempting to weaken a nation's resolve when fighting is necessary. Those who do not comprehend the importance of the examples given (WWII aggression) should pick up some good books on the period and improve their knowledge of history. A similar word that is used in the same manner as "peace" is "Christian". Many propangandists that are employed by con artists use this word to solicit donations from ignorant people who believe that their dollars are going to a good cause. One should beware of arguments or sales pitches that use the words peace and Christian.
Click below to read one of best essays I have seen on war. It and a similar article explain in more detail what has been happening in our colleges and universities. It is quite apparent the agents of International Communism have already succeeded to an astonishing degree in their goal of subverting our youth.
Why Study War?
Example of Countering Anti-Americanism
We pay for our students to obtain an education on certain prescribed subjects, for the teacher or professor to teach what we pay him to teach, and to be certain that other subjects are not "taught" instead. Since many of the faculties and administrations of our colleges and universities have become infested with or completely taken over by enemy agents, it is vital that we take steps to prevent further damage to our young people. Some steps are beginning to be taken in this regard.
According to a newsletter from the Freedom Center, all of Pennsylvania's academic freedom up till now has been freedom for the professors in the institutions of learning - not the students. The administrators from the institutions that were examined all claimed that the students had academic freedom, but the legislative Committee on Academic Freedom did not find this to be true. After the hearings had been concluded, the colleges and universities were obliged to correct the deficiencies. Now the students do have academic freedom and means of protesting violations by professors or administrators. Penn State Policy HR 64 states: The faculty member is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his/her subject. The faculty member is, however, responsible for the maintenance of appropriate standards of scholarship and teaching ability. It is not the function of a faculty member in a democracy to indoctrinate his/her students with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. The faculty member is expected to train students to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials which they need if they are to think intelligently. Hence in giving instruction upon controversial matters the faculty member is expected to be of a fair and judicial mind, and to set forth justly, without supercession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of other investigators.
This appears to be a good thing, although it does use the word "democracy" rather than "republic" and it does not prevent the faculty member from presenting only those opinions of other investigators who favor only one side of an issue (half truths in effect).
The policy also states: No faculty member may claim as a right the privilege of discussing in the classroom controversial topics outside his/her own field of study. The faculty member is normally bound not to take advantage of his/her position by introducing into the classroom provocative discussions or irrelevant subjects not within the field of his/her study.
In an institution which is dominated by enemy agents or sympathizers, these policies might not be enforced except for the fact that they are accompanied by grievance machinery specific to academic freedom matters, along with a system that reports abuses directly to the board of trustees. Pennsylvania is the first state to introduce policies that protect the students as well as the professors. Perhaps these policies will be improved as time shows their shortcomings, and perhaps other states will adopt similar policies.
Exploiting Fear in a Democracy/Republic
There may be many philosophies or faiths that each of us do not particulary like - in fact, we may even hate them. However, we must allow those who follow them to present their views so long as those views are not threatening to alter the Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, or to *unfairly infringe upon the rights of others. This means that when the rights of those who oppose you are threatened, you must take action to save their rights. Our common bond must be the preservation of as much individual freedom for everyone as possible.
According to Kenneth R. Timmerman in his book Preachers of Hate, Protestant theologian Martin Niemoeller put it eloquently in a comment made to a student who asked why no one in Germany stood up for the Jews against Nazi persecution. First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade-unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade-unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. Niemoeller was arrested by Hitler on July 1, 1947, and jailed for seven months, then rearrested and sent to a concentration camp for the duration of the war.
Most of the time, this means that one must vote fairly, intelligently, and unselfishly. For example, one may dislike the practice of smoking and there is an opportunity to place a higher tax on cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco than is true for other products. First, this is an unfair tax to the smoker. Second, it is going to cause the smoker to spend more on cigarettes - which adversely affects his or her family (those who have lived with addicts know this - the addiction usually is greater than the individual's sense of family responsibility), so the tax is not truly an intelligent way to handle the problem. Third, the tax is a selfish ploy by those in government who want more money for themselves. The conclusion is that there is a better way to handle nicotine addiction and one should vote "no" on the proposed tax.
In a democratic republic, presenting one's facts and logic (truthfully), followed by voting is the correct path to influencing the course of events. People should have the opportunity to speak their minds and may be persuaded by argument - but not by force. Often, the other person has some points that should be considered, and a compromise may turn out to provide a better solution to a problem. One should listen carefully. Force should be used only as a counter to force (which would be illegal in a true democracy).
* [For example, this principle was violated with the adoption of the income tax amendment, and anyone who is familiar with the full import of the results knows that it has adversely affected us all. See Income Tax]
Recommended Educational Material
Back to Beginning - Main Menu
Functions of Language
Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 1 thru 13
More Fallacies or Errors in Reasoning, 14 thru 21
Propaganda and Propaganda Appeals
Devices for Propaganda